Arielle Popstar

This isn't just about those who identify as child avatars but also those who are perceived as mid to late teen or even early 20"s. We all potentially get thrown under the bus.

Some of the clubs I attend are on adult land. I'm not a child avatar but the look i tend towards can be seen as somewhat straddling the line. So not everyone is happy with the restrictions in spite of not identifying as under 18.

Looks like it to me especially with the reports of people being banned.

It's been strongly implied if not outright stated by at least 2 of the child hating brigade. Maybe you missed it.

If it is a burden, it is a punishment. LL protecting itself should be done internally from the sounds of certain published documents, not by restricting a subset of avatars of where they can go or how they should be dressed.

Joke, sarcasm?

I wonder if she'll remember saying it in the morning

And what do you base that on? There have been reports of femboys being banned and one club I visit on occasion, quite a few less then normal.

Pretty much But now even more so.

I don't think it is the intent that one must ALWAYS wear it even if they are not in a child suit.

I'm not a creator by any stretch but I really don't see that adding a modesty area to the relevant parts would be that difficult on a modifiable skin. Put it PS or Gimp, make a layer with the modesty area, save, upload and wear.

So it is said but I think that remains to be seen. Likely that land owners would continue using height as the first determining factor when scoping out a new avatar coming in.

Not as far as I know. I have looked at other avatars to see what they were wearing but the BoM layers were not listed. Maybe a CB viewer could but I've not tried that.

As per LL's policy, a modesty layer cannot be removed. Covered yes, but not removed.

People keep saying that but it is clear that there are many situations where it is not easily determined and Governance has to look at other factors to determine the intent of the avatar.

Maybe you could get a job on the Governance team so they would not have to review cases where there were dubious rulings?

The sky certainly has lowered for all which explains why SL can't retain new users if their life depended on it, which it does in the long term. This new ruling will not do anything to increase the retention rate as it is just leaving everyone in the dark about what constitutes underaged avatars. I doubt it as Opensim is a case of the blind being led by the blind and populated by former Second lifers who still think they are governed by the SL ToS. There'd be too much imported drama is there was a big influx of SL immigrants.

Individually and in some cases Groups, SL has ended for thousands. For those who remain, hanging on is an exercise in white knuckling.

Until about 2016, 2017, Imvu had the better avatars but Imvu is much clearer about what is and isn't allowed and goes to the point of coding their viewers so that a none age verified account, is not even able to see adult content.

I don't know what the size of the under 12 population is though I think it is more then I originally thought but the size of the 17-21 population that could come under suspicion, is significant from what I see when out shopping and in clubs. This new policy change will possibly effect quite a few. Even looking at the forum profile pics of some of the child hating naysayers here I notice it would only require a few tweaks to make them much younger looking. A smile instead of a frown, eyebrows flattened a bit, cheeks puffed a little more and voila! Friendlier looking and now open to being reported for being too young!

It wasn't illegal for the past 20 years and no r/l laws have changed to make it now illegal so it is only Linden whim that has changed.

Now the the question is whether it is a 17 year old with or without the modesty cover or a 19 year old. Some here will use the justification of letting Governance sort it out and report the avatar. Governance may be swamped and just start or continue banning without an investigation. As far as reviewing bans, I'll believe it when I hear of it and one question will be whether an AR'red account will actually hear they are being reviewed or it is just Governance making it sound good but not really following through.

Don't dismiss a problem just because you personally don't see it. Governance has come out to say they have new policies in place to review cases in a way that made it sound like they didn't before. Question is how many cases in the past 20 years should have been reviewed.

I don't think SL would survive that. Too many would suffer and go elsewhere as a result. I'll bet even now they are watching carefully how many are going to kick up a stink and threaten to leave.

Actually no, the pedo's will up the ante until they find someone greedy/vulnerable enough to take them up on their offers to transform to a look the adult is interested in.